Preview creating a TaskMarket task (no spend)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the tool's non-mutating nature: 'Calls no network write and moves no funds.' It also reveals the return values (costUsdc, expiresAt) and the token's short-lived nature, giving the agent a clear behavioral profile beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavioral safety, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and maintains high information density without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential context for a preview tool: side-effect-freeness, return values, and the follow-up step (calling create_task). It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning error cases, authentication, or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the explicit behavioral details, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (2 of 6 params documented). The description does not explain any of the input parameters, merely referring to 'the same parameters' as create_task. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from sibling tool context or prior knowledge.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compute the cost and mint a short-lived confirmation token for create_task.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, preview_award_submissions, etc. It also clarifies the tool's input/output relationship to create_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Show the returned costUsdc and expiresAt to the user before calling create_task with the same parameters plus the returned confirmationToken.' This gives a clear usage flow and context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough to direct the agent appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.